“As we learn more and moreabout the universe,there seems less and lessfor God to do.”

Carl Sagan, 1979

(Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of
Science,
p.286)

Modern science provides one set of answers to
the mysteries
of life. In the twentieth century, scientists have articulated an
astonishing set of ideas about cosmic origins. The creation of
the
universe is now traced back to the first moments of existence,
estimated
to have been some fifteen billion years ago. Physicists and
astrophysicists
describe the first instant of creation when the universe was 10 -43
seconds old, and less than a billion times smaller than the diameter of
a proton in size, 10-35 cm! Such an infinitesimally
small
point source is called a singularity. Scientist propose
that
the Universe had such zero point, or singularity condition origins.
Physicists are also seeking to unify the fundamental laws
of physics into one “superforce” or “superstring” theory, which would
have
ruled creation at this first instant, before being divided into the
various
particles and forces of nature. Physicist Paul Davies describes
this
as the God like Superforce. Thus, scientists have traced
the
universe back to what can be described as a zero point, wherein all of
the forces of nature were once unified.
Beyond the singularity, physicists are concerned
with the hidden dimensions of the quantum vacuum, the underlying
source of all things. The quantum vacuum is not really nothing,
as
it appears to physical perception, but somehow contains everything in a
latent or unmanifest state. One modern physicist declares: “The
whole
of physics is in the vacuum.” The quantum vacuum is
both
the void and the plenum, the nothingness and its potencies. At
the
beginning of time, all the quanta (particles) composing material
reality
are thought to have manifested out of the nothingness of the quantum
vacuum,
through a process of symmetry breaking in higher dimensions of
space.
Physicists label this creation scenario, vacuum genesis,
and
sometimes comment on its likeness to the creation ex nihilo of
mystical
and Christian traditions.
From that first instant of creation to the world today,
scientists have pieced together a fascinating, seemingly consistent and
rational view of the origins and evolution of matter, the universe and
solar system, the planet, biological life, and ultimately
humankind.
There are theories about the origins of matter, the formation of stars,
galaxies and solar systems, the origins of molecular substances and
cells,
and the evolution of plants, animals and human beings from lower life
forms.
Biologists, biochemists and medical researchers are busily unravelling
the mysteries of genetics, the mechanisms of evolution, and the
dynamics
of health and disease.
At the same time, neurologists and neuro-psychologists
have explored what is considered to be the most complex and distinctive
human organ, the brain, mapping and dissecting its structures and
analysing its functions. The nature of intelligence and the
capacities
of thought and cognition have been subject to countless studies and
experiments.
In fact, philosophers, psychologists and sociologists seem to have
probed
every conceivable quirk and quark of the human psyche and its immensely
complicated behavioural and emotional patterns.
In every department of the natural and social
sciences,
a massive literature, bodies of theory and technology have been
accumulated,
documenting the advances made over the past century. This is an
amazing
feat which contemporary science writers celebrate and praise
lavishly.
Clearly, modern science affords us profound and penetrating insights
into
the nature of reality, and into questions of origins.
Imagine
that, that the scientist trace the origin of the Universe to a point
source!

Dr. Carl Sagan was a celebrated
American astronomer
and exo-biologist, science writer, television personality, and host of
the highly acclaimed Cosmos T.V. series. He is perhaps
the
most widely read of popular science writers who present modern
scientific
ideas, facts, and philosophy to the general public. In that role,
Dr. Sagan romantically praised the advances of modern science and
spoken
eloquently on the topics of the nature and philosophy of science, the
pseudo-sciences,
religion, environmental and cultural issues.
In his writings, Dr. Sagan covered a wide spectrum
of subjects. These ranged from the creation of the universe to
the
evolution of humankind; the nature of the brain and mind; explorations
of alleged paranormal phenomena; environmental and political issues,
and
even discussion of the “God hypothesis.” In Broca's Brain:
Reflections on the Romance of Science, Dr. Sagan examined
the viability of religious teachings in view of science’s spectacular
advances.
In a chapter, A Sunday Sermon, he ventured into areas
where
even angels might fear to tread, to address the God hypothesis.
In
his sermon, Dr. Sagan argues that, as science advances, we are able to
explain natural phenomena without recourse to supernatural
explanations.
As an example, he considers the opening of a morning glory
flower.
He suggests that at one time, people used to believe that any such
event
was due to “direct microintervention by the Deity.” Thus,
in order for the flower to open, “God had to say “Hey, flower,
open.”
Dr. Sagan then explains that scientists can now account for the opening
of the morning glory because they understand phototropism and plant
hormones,
and consequently, there is no need to refer to any sort of divine
microintervention.
Sagan then applies this same line of reasoning to the whole scheme of
creation
and evolution, and concludes: “As we learn more and more about the
universe,
there seems less and less for God to do.” (1979, p.286).

Dr. Sagan’s comments pose what I, the fool,
will call
“the problem of God's contracting universe.” Is it
really
correct to say that, as science advances, there is less and less for
God
to do? Has science’s progress really removed God from the entire
skein of causality all the way back to the beginning, including the
very
moment of creation?
Carl Sagan expresses sentiments common to
scientists:
that science offers the only valid and comprehensive approach to
understanding
the nature of reality. Science involves submitting hypotheses to
tests of empirical evidence, in terms of a specific set of rules and
procedures,
which allows one to falsify propositions. It represents a
rational
and objective body of knowledge, in dramatic contrast to religious and
mystical teachings. Dr. Sagan argues that the beauty and strength
of the scientific method is that it has freed humans from the dogma and
irrationality imposed by religious authority. The scrutiny of science
exposes
the subjectivity of religious insights and pronouncements. In
this
spirit, he explains, scientists have come to regard all references to
God
as invocations of a discredited and unnecessary explanation.
Sagan offers various examples of natural phenomena
which were once believed to be caused by supernatural forces, but which
gradually yielded to scientific understanding. He states that
when
Newton explained planetary motion in terms of the theory of
gravitation,
it was no longer necessary for the “angels to push and pummel the
planets.”
Similarly, when the Marquis de Laplace offered a rational explanation
of
the origin of the solar system, there was then no need to invoke God to
be involved in its creation. (1979, p. 286) Of
course, Dr. Sagan's stories are quite entertaining, but was he really
serious
about these scientific ideas disproving God? Who exactly is it
that
said angels had to push and pummel the planets, or that the existence
of
God is negated by a theory of gravity? Did Carl Sagan
really
believe that God takes time out from his busy schedule to tell
morning
glories, “Hey, flower, open”?
These examples are most peculiar. This
representation
of a religious world view is a caricature; a straw man erected in order
to push and pummel it with the formidable power of scientific
thought.
By casting religious views in such simplistic terms, Dr. Sagan fixs the
outcome of his debate between science and religion. Why would a
theory
about the origin of the solar system profoundly challenge the necessity
of a God being involved in the origins of things? How do these
modern
theories, or scientific theories in general, bear upon the issue of
whether
God, or Gods, exist? Dr. Sagan confidently dismisses the
possibility
that spiritual or religious perspectives might offer legitimate
scientific
hypotheses and asserts his belief that all religious and spiritual
world
views are inferior to science, the epitome of rationality and
objectivity.
In The Mind of God, Paul Davies, another
popular science writer, presents a dialogue between an atheist and a
theist,
a scientist and a theologian, to illustrate arguments about the
existence
of God in light of scientific advance. Davies explains the
current
concept of “the God of the gaps” and discusses how God got
“squeezed out” of science. Essentially, the thrust of the
atheist’s
argument is the same as that which Dr. Sagan presents: that as
science
advances, there is less and less for God to do, as He gets squeezed
out.
Davies’s atheist explains that science’s capacity to do away with a God
or gods now extends all the way back to the very questions of origins,
and interpretations of the meaning of the “big bang:”

Atheist: At one time, gods were used as an
explanation
for all sorts of physical phenomenon, such as the wind and the rain and
the motion of the planets. As science progressed, so supernatural
agents were found to be superfluous as an explanation for natural
events.
Why do you insist on invoking God to explain the big bang? ...
Theists
have always been tempted to seize on any process that science could not
at the time explain and claim that God was still needed to explain
it.
Then, as science progressed, God got squeezed out. You should
learn
the lesson that this “God of the gaps” is an unreliable
hypothesis.
As time goes on, there are fewer and fewer gaps for him to
inhabit.
I personally see no problem in science explaining all natural
phenomena,
including the origin of life. I concede that the origin of the
universe
is a tougher nut to crack. But if, as it seems, we have now
reached
the stage where the only remaining gap is the big bang, it is highly
unsatisfying
to invoke the concept of a supernatural being who has been displaced
from
all else, in the “last-ditch” capacity. (1992, pp. 58-9)

The problem of the God of the gaps is essentially the same as the
problem
of God’s contracting universe. As science advances, there are
fewer
“gaps” in scientific theory, and less and less reason to regard
creation
as having had “a creator,” or to be the result of supernatural or
metaphysical
causes. Life can be explained most simply in terms of purely
natural
processes.
The theist’s view that God might somehow be involved
in the mysterious nature of the big bang and the emergence of a
singularity,
is regarded as a last ditch effort to invoke a superfluous God
hypothesis.
This is the line of thinking and attitude expressed by those enthused
with
modern science and technology, who believe that they are close to
solving
the mysteries of origins.
In God and the New Physics, Paul Davies
warns
that, even when we do find some gap in scientific theory, we should be
most cautious about invoking supernatural agencies or forces as causes:

"What once seemed miraculous ... perhaps requiring
a supernatural
input at the big bang, now seems explicable on ordinary physical
grounds,
in the light of improved scientific understanding. However
astonishing
and inexplicable a particular occurrence may be, we can never be
absolutely
sure that at some distant time in the future a natural phenomenon will
not be discovered to explain it. (1983, p. 31)

Most scientists are of the opinion that there are few remaining gaps
for
God to inhabit, now that we are close to understanding the ultimate
issues
of universal origins.

The prominent physicist and cosmologist, Stephen
Hawking,
attempts to explain creation in such a way to avoid the God
hypothesis.
In his best seller, A Brief History of Time (1988), Dr. Hawking
puts forth the view that if scientists are successful in developing a
unified
theory of quantum gravity, then it would do away with the necessity of
a big bang singularity. The problem for the scientists, as
Hawking
explains, is that:

"... all our theories of science are formulated on
the assumption
that space-time is smooth and nearly flat, so they break down at the
big
bang singularity, where the curvature of space-time is infinite. ...
predictability
would break down at the big bang. Many people do not like the idea that
time has a beginning, probably because it smacked of divine
intervention.
... There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the
conclusion
that there had been a big bang." (1988, p. 46)

In Hawking’s unified theory of quantum gravity, the mysterious
singularity
would be “smeared out” according to the uncertainty principle of
quantum
theory. In this case, he argues, science will have arrived
at a completely natural explanation of the origin of the universe, and
there is no need to invoke any metaphysical causes, or God, even in the
beginning:

"... the quantum theory of gravity has opened up a
new possibility,
in which there would be no need to specify the behaviour at the
boundary.
There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down
and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or
some
new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. ... The
universe
would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside
itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would
just BE." (P. 136)

Dr. Hawking portrays himself as explaining away the big bang
singularity
in terms of natural laws, so that there is nothing left for God to
do.
He takes this logic back to beginning of time, to show how we do
not need mysticism, religion or God, now that we have science. In an
interview,
Hawking comments: “We still believe that the universe should be logical
and beautiful. We just dropped the word ‘God.’” (Weber,
1986,
p. 12) Of course, only heaven knows why Dr. Hawking thinks that
there
is nothing “mystical” about the singularity if it is smeared out
into the unity. Of course, Hawking does not consider any of the
mystical
teachings about such point source origins, in his account of science
and
religion.
Most orthodox scientists hold pejorative views of
religion and mysticism, regarding them as pseudo-scientific,
irrational,
superstitious, vague and misty belief systems. Charles Tart
(1975)
once commented that “being a mystic is considered pathological by
most
... One of the most deprecating remarks you could make about a
scientist's
work is to say that it shows signs of being ‘mystical.’” (p.
111) This attitude is evident in Hawking’s comments in an
interview
with Rene Weber (1986):

"I very much disapprove of mysticism. ... I think
it’s a cop-out.
If you find theoretical physics and mathematics too hard, you turn to
mysticism.
I think people who have this idea about mysticism in physics are people
who really can’t understand the mathematics." (p. 210)

Many scientists would agree with Hawking’s contention, that those who
turn
to mysticism do so because they are incapable of meeting science’s
intellectual
challenges. Thus, Heinz Pagels (1985), in an otherwise marvelous
book on the creation of the universe, quotes the physicist R. Feynman,
and concludes:

“If you expected science to give all the answers to
the wonderful
questions about what we are, where we are going, what the meaning of
the
universe is, and so on, then I think you could easily become
disillusioned
and look for some mystic answer. How a scientist can accept a
mystic
answer, I don’t know. I can’t believe the special stories that
have
been made up about our relationship to the universe at large because
they
seem to be too simple, too connected, too provincial. People ask
me if science is true. I say no, we don’t know what’s true.
We’re trying to find out, and everything is possibly wrong.” (Feynman,
quoted p. 368) And where am I? I am in the present, this
imperfect
moment, trying to remain vulnerable to its intense specificity.
There
is no other time for me to be or place to go, no cosmic consciousness
nor
facile mysticism into which I can retreat." (p. 370)

In the views of Hawking and Feynmann, mysticism is nothing more than
subjective
fancy, the refuge of the intellectually challenged and emotionally
self-indulgent–in
contrast to the objective knowledge of science. Certainly, no one
would look to mysticism for insights into the subtle dimensionality of
creation, or the mysteries of human consciousness.
It is readily apparent on reading Sagan, Pagels,
Hawking and other popular science writers, who explore creation issues
(i.e., Jastrow, Asimov, Davis, Gribbin, Trefil), that these scientists
are completely ignorant as to what esoteric religious and mystical
teachings
actually entail, and how they compare to modern scientific
theories.
They confidently dismiss mysticism as nothing but vague
pseudo-sciences,
yet there is no academic or scholarly consideration of mystical or
esoteric
doctrines. In their eagerness to deny mysticism relevance or
significance
in the search for understanding ourselves and the cosmos, scientists
betray
their unmistakable ignorance of the subject.
There is, however, one type of God that scientists
are willing to admit. In his Sunday Sermon, Dr. Sagan comments
that
he is frequently asked after his lectures if he “believes in God,” and
that his answer depends on what the word “God” is taken to mean.
Like other scientists, Sagan is willing to accept the idea of God if we
equate this concept with the sum of the natural laws of nature, but not
if we identify God with some bearded patriarch sitting on a throne
counting
sparrows, or saying “Hey, flower, open.” For Dr. Sagan, the
God alternatives seem to be exclusively restricted to a choice between
bearded patriarchs and natural laws. Furthermore, he seems to be
entirely unaware of the complex metaphysical models and systems which
mystical
and spiritual teachings put forth.
But clearly, a religious or spiritual person could
hardly accept Sagan’s identification of God as simply being a label for
the sum of physical and natural laws. From a religious or
mystical
viewpoint, God transcends the laws of nature and is the source of these
laws. This Divine Being is omnipresent (present everywhere as the
source of all things), omnipotent (containing all potencies for
creation
and cosmic manifestation) and omniscient (all knowing). These
attributes
suggest that God is a form of Absolute Consciousness and Being which
pervades
and sustains creation, and yet is simultaneously transcendent, existing
beyond the manifest Cosmos. Dr. Sagan may believe that he is
appeasing
devotional and religious sentiment, but this God of science–as
the
sum of natural laws–does not coincide with religious or mystical
viewpoints.
Furthermore, those who believe in God regard human
beings as having a spiritual or soul nature, in addition to the life of
the material body/brain. God is the source of the consciousness
and
life within the individual, the source of spirit and soul. From a
religious and mystical viewpoint, all the laws of nature and of the
psyche
are of supernatural origin. The “soul hypothesis” is a
corollary
of “the God hypothesis.”
Despite his rather limited imagination on the
subject
of God, Carl Sagan is–excuse the expression–a brave and hearty
soul.
Thus, he offers some encouragement for the religiously-minded
suggesting
that:

“... a questing, courageous and open mind seems
to be the
essential tool for narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on
the
subject of the existence of God.” (1979, p. 311)

How true this is! The questions of the existence of God,
spirit
and soul, do need to be approached with a questing, courageous and open
mind, in order to overcome our ignorance about these important
subjects.
Unfortunately, scientists are not typically exposed to the esoteric
side
of religious and mystical teachings, and dismiss these
possibilities
without at all understanding what they entail.
Elsewhere, Dr. Sagan gets to the heart of the
problem
in his discussion of religion and science noting::

"... it is a kindness neither to science nor
religion to leave
unchallenged inadequate arguments for the existence of God.
Moreover, debates on such questions are good fun, and at the very
least,
hone the mind for useful work. Not much of this sort of
disputation
is in evidence today, perhaps because new arguments for the existence
of
God which can be understood at all are exceedingly rare. (1979,
p.
130)

From a scientific perspective, traditional arguments
for the existence of God are inadequate and superficial. They are
untestable and cannot be falsified, and are therefore
pseudo-scientific.
Science meanwhile discovers natural laws, and we might question how it
would ever be possible to discover any God, demigods, divine beings, or
other supernatural forces in the phenomena of nature, according to
scientific
principles. As Carl Sagan says, arguments for the existence of God,
which
can be understood at all within a scientific perspective, are
exceedingly
rare. The matter would seem to end here, with science and
religion
a world apart and irreconcilable.
Paul Davies’ atheist elaborates these same points:

Atheist: ... unless you (the theist) have other
reasons to
believe in God’s existence, then merely proclaiming “God created the
universe”
is totally ad hoc. It is no explanation at all. ... One
mystery
(the origin of the universe) is explained only in terms of another
(God).
As a scientist I appeal to Occam’s razor, which then dictates that the
God hypothesis be rejected as an unnecessary complication. ... the bald
statement that “God created the universe” fails to provide any real
explanation
unless it is accompanied by a detailed mechanism. One wants to
know,
for example, what properties to assign this God, and precisely how he
goes
about creating the universe, why the universe has the form it does, and
so on. In short, unless you either provide evidence in some
other way that such a God exists, or else give a detailed account
of
how he made the universe that even an atheist like me would regard as
deeper,
simpler, and more satisfying, I see no reason to believe in such a
being.
(1992, pp. 59-60)

Within-Without from Zero-Points takes up
the challenge
posed by Dr. Sagan , Dr. Hawking and Davies’ atheist. The aim is
to elaborate the archaic models of how metaphysical and supernatural
forces
serve to create and sustain material creation, and to illustrate the
application
of such a perspective. This is a model of "intelligent design"
based
upon the study of the esoteric metaphysics articulated within the
mystical
and religious texts of the world religions. Otherwise, if we do
not
have a model of Intelligent Design, no further progress can be made in
the theist-atheist debate. The theist will argue that nature shows
evidence
of intelligent design, and the atheist will argue that it doesn't--that
it is just all chance and randomness, and order inherent to material
reality.
A substantive God theory is needed which
describes
the mechanisms and dynamics of divine, spiritual and psychical forces
and
how these are related to material processes--hence, simplifying the
known,
predicting new observations and allowing for empirical tests and
verification.
In fact, mystical, occult and metaphysical teachings
provide just such detailed explanatory schemes, although they are
deeply
hidden and obscure. The fundamental cosmic principles of creation
from mystical teachings provide a profoundly valuable explanatory
schemes
and model of intelligent design. These principles should be
applicable
to investigating phenomena on all levels of creation, within any domain
of knowledge, science or reality. However, in order to uncover
this
“hidden wisdom,” it is necessary to undertake a certain degree of
special
training and to go beyond solely intellectual efforts in apprehending
these
ancient insights and truths. The study of the mysteries of
life cannot be separated from the study of oneself and the nature of
consciousness
in the inner world.

Of course, scientists feel awe in the face of the
mysterious nature of existence and admit to their ignorance on the
ultimate
unknowns. Carl Sagan exemplifies this attitude, and so, at times,
does Stephen Hawking. In Shirley MacLaine's
(1989) popular new age book Going Within, she recounts a rather
unusual and paradoxical interaction with Dr. Hawking and his wife,
Jane:

"I don't remember who made the initial foray into
the discussion
of “truth beyond what is provable”. ... In any case, Jane (Mrs.
Hawking)
said she was often frustrated with Stephen and his scientific approach
to truth because she felt that there was an explanation for life that
lay
in the lap of the Gods and the heart. ... “I don't like
mysticism,”
Stephen said via his voice box computer. “But my wife and I don't
always agree.” He smiled at her and then at me. “But I need
the heart because physics isn't everything.” He hesitated a
moment and then said, “I need heart and physics, but I believe that
when
I die, I die, and it will be finished.” ( pp. 297-298)

Intuitively, Dr. Hawking seems to feel that there might be something to
the heart, something beyond his physics. On the other hand, with
his mind and intelligence, Dr Hawking “believes” that when he dies,
that's
it. He will cease to be and there will be no simple retreat into
mystical unity, God or heaven. Within/Without from Zero-Points
explores
new arguments and theories, provides original evidences about the
existence
of God, and points to the reality and causal significance of
metaphysical
dimensions and principles. The framework developed is based on a
wide range of esoteric mystical teachings and focuses on four main
subject
areas: 1) the origin and nature of human consciousness; 2) a
metaphysical
model of nature with applications to the data, theories and enigmas in
modern physics; 3) a mystical account of creation which
elaborates
some of the mechanism and dynamics, pertinent to modern views in
physics
and cosmology; and 4) a view of evolution in its spiritual and
metaphysical
meaning, with applications within the life sciences. Explorations
in all four areas provide what I, the fool, believe is a highly
original
perspective on the “God of the gaps.” Within-Without
from Zero Points is a serious and scholarly attempt to take up
these issues of metaphysics, science and religion and address them in a
new way, based upon the wisdom teachings of humankind.

Certainly, the God hypothesis
and the
soul hypothesis are not granted serious consideration by
those
who subscribe to Dr. Sagan’s philosophical approach to the universe,
nor
by adherents of Dr. Hawking’s interpretations of quantum gravity
theory.
However, in the light of esoteric teachings, we can propose a physics
with
a heart, and in fact, penetrate to the heart of physics. The key
to exploring the God hypothesis actually lies within the physics and
metaphysics
of the heart itself, the mysteries of zero points and higher space
dimensions.

Scientists simply do not understand what
mystical
teachings entail and how such ideas are related to scientific
theories.
Consequently, when Dr. Sagan turns his careful thinking to
spiritual
realities and the existence of divinity, he ends up telling us about
God
talking to flowers, or angels pushing and pummelling the planets.
In this rare book, we will attempt to “modernize the God hypothesis"
through a comparative study of modern psychology, physics and
cosmology,
and the ancient wisdom and secret doctrines of the mystics. This
is a worthwhile endeavour, even if it is only “to hone our minds
for
useful things.” At least it can be good fun, as Dr. Sagan
notes,
and it might allow us to integrate physics and the heart, for Dr.
Hawking.
It also will allow us a new and yet ancient way of understanding
Intelligent
Design within nature, and ourselves.